Amaravati, November 17, 2025 – In a pivotal judgment that reinforces constitutional imperatives for social justice, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the state government to implement reservations for transgender persons in public employment within six months. Delivered by Justice Nyapathy Vijay in Katru Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P. No. 26262 of 2025) on November 6, 2025, the ruling addresses the systemic exclusion of transgenders from recruitment processes, citing the Supreme Court’s seminal verdict in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014). This decision not only mandates affirmative action but also compels the authorities to consider the petitioner’s appointment, marking a significant step toward mainstreaming one of India’s most marginalized communities.
The petitioner, Katru Rekha, a 32-year-old transgender woman from Jangareddygudem village in Eluru district, challenged the state’s failure to notify vacancies for transgenders in the Mega DSC-2025 recruitment drive. Issued on April 20, 2025, by the Director of School Education, the notification aimed to fill approximately 16,000 teaching posts, including School Assistant (Language) Hindi positions. Rekha, holding the requisite qualifications—a B.A., B.Ed., and Hindi Praveen—secured the 678th rank in Eluru district. Despite her merit, she was overlooked, as no provisions were made for transgender candidates. Invoking Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and dignity) of the Constitution, Rekha argued that the omission violated the NALSA judgment and G.O. Ms. No. 20 dated December 30, 2017, from the Women and Child Welfare Department, which recognizes transgender rights.
Represented by advocate M. Solomon Raju, Rekha sought a writ of mandamus declaring the recruitment process discriminatory and directing her appointment through a supernumerary post. She highlighted the absence of any transgender-specific quotas, despite the community’s entrenched social and economic backwardness. The state, through Government Pleader for Services-II Gurram Ramachandra Rao, countered that reservations are a policy matter, absent which the recruitment could not be faulted.
Justice Vijay’s 13-page order begins with a poignant excerpt from NALSA: “Seldom, our society realises or cares to realise the trauma, agony and pain which the members of transgender community undergo…” The court underscores the historical marginalization of transgenders, referencing their revered roles in ancient texts like the Ramayana and Mahabharata, contrasted with colonial-era stigmatization under the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871. It affirms that transgenders, as a socially and educationally backward class (SEBC), are entitled to affirmative action under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
Delving into NALSA’s directives, the judgment extracts key paragraphs (63-68), emphasizing that “sex” discrimination under Articles 15 and 16 encompasses gender identity. The Supreme Court in NALSA mandated states to extend reservations in education and employment, recognizing transgenders’ denial of rights under Article 15(2) (access to public places) and Article 16(2) (equality in employment). Justice Vijay notes the Parliament’s response via the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, yet laments the lack of quotas therein, leaving implementation to states.
The court surveys progressive precedents from sister high courts. In V. Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana (2023 SCC Online TS 1688), the Telangana High Court struck down the archaic Telangana Eunuchs Act, 1329 Fasli, and directed 1% horizontal reservations, co-opting legal services authorities into welfare boards. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court in Mrinal Barik v. State of West Bengal (2024 SCC Online Cal 5920) mandated 1% reservations in public jobs. The Madras High Court in Saratha v. Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (2022 SCC Online Mad 92) recommended special quotas, while the Kerala High Court in Kabeer C. v. State of Kerala (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 30) set a six-month timeline for implementation.
Justice Vijay observes that Andhra Pradesh’s inaction, despite NALSA’s decade-old mandate, perpetuates injustice. “The transgender community is not only socially and economically backward but has also been abandoned by society,” he writes, invoking the moral obligation for affirmative action to remedy centuries of exclusion. Rejecting the state’s policy deferral argument, the court asserts that constitutional duties cannot await legislative whims, especially when transgenders face stigma leading to socio-economic isolation.
On the recruitment specifics, the judgment faults the Mega DSC notification for ignoring transgender needs, violating equality principles. It directs the state to formulate reservations within six months and evaluate Rekha’s candidature for School Assistant (Hindi), potentially via a supernumerary post. No costs were imposed, but miscellaneous petitions, including amendments for typographical errors (initially misstating “Biology” instead of “Hindi”), were disposed of.
This ruling has far-reaching implications. Andhra Pradesh, with an estimated 40,000-50,000 transgenders (per 2011 Census, though activists claim undercounting), has lagged in transgender welfare. G.O. Ms. No. 20/2017 acknowledges their vulnerabilities but lacks enforcement. The judgment could catalyze policy reforms, aligning with the 2019 Act’s welfare boards and identity certificates. Legal experts hail it as a “NALSA enforcement mechanism,” potentially influencing neighboring states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, where similar petitions pend.
Critics, however, worry about implementation hurdles. Transgender activist Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli, involved in Telangana litigation, welcomes the order but cautions: “Reservations alone aren’t enough; sensitization programs for employers are crucial to combat workplace discrimination.” Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reveals transgenders face 30% higher unemployment and violence rates, underscoring the urgency.
Nationally, transgender reservations vary. Karnataka pioneered 1% horizontal quotas in 2021, followed by Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Yet, enforcement remains patchy; a 2024 Lok Sabha query revealed only 12% of states have dedicated policies. The Supreme Court’s recent affirmation in Union of India v. K.S. Mahabal (2024) of transgender rights under Article 16 could bolster appeals if Andhra Pradesh delays.
For Rekha, the verdict offers hope after years of struggle. Unemployed despite qualifications, she represents countless transgenders denied opportunities. “This isn’t just my fight; it’s for dignity,” she told reporters post-hearing.
As Andhra Pradesh gears for compliance, the judgment echoes NALSA’s vision: mainstreaming transgenders through inclusive policies. It reminds governments that constitutional equality demands action, not apathy. With the six-month clock ticking, stakeholders await a framework that could transform lives, fostering a more equitable judiciary and society.
In ancillary developments, the court granted interim amendments via I.A. No. 2/2025 and disposed of I.A. No. 1/2025 for supernumerary appointment pending final orders. This case, filed under Article 226, exemplifies judicial activism in bridging legislative gaps, potentially setting a pan-India benchmark for transgender empowerment.
(Word count: 1492)
